Jim Allister MP: speeches

550 published records · newest first.

Speeches

13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source
More
Does the Home Secretary agree that the murderous attack on the Jewish community in Manchester was the product of the rampant Islamic radicalisation that we have seen across our country—something which chimes with the antisemitism that has been evidenced in the bitter hate marches in our capital city? In that context, is enough being done to deal with the radicalisers? Do we not need to strike the axe at the root of this problem? Much of that root is those who are radicalising young people to carry out awful acts such as this.
16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source
More
I want to use the few minutes that I have to focus on how it could be that, just last Wednesday, the Prime Minister of this country came to tell this House that he had “confidence” in Lord Mandelson, the friend of the paedophile, in his role as a key ambassador for the Government. The Prime Minister said that not once but twice, when the Leader of the Opposition rightly asked him, declaring: “I have confidence in him”, and “I have confidence in the ambassador”. —[ Official Report , 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 860.] Those were his ringing endorsements of Lord Mandelson. I want to examine the circumstances that then prevailed when he said that he had confidence in Lord Mandelson. What is confidence? Confidence is having trust, faith and belief in someone. That is what the Prime Minister was telling this House in respect of Lord Mandelson last Wednesday, yet by Monday it was a matter of public knowledge that the Bloomberg emails had been published. The Prime Minister has since made some startling claims. He said that when he was answering Prime Minister’s questions he knew that questions were being asked, but he knew only about media inquiries about the emails and that questions were being put to Lord Mandelson. Our Prime Minister is a King’s Counsel. The natural instinct of a lawyer is to interrogate, and the training of a lawyer is to equip them to interrogate. However, this House is being told that when the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said “I have confidence” in Lord Mandelson, even though he knew that questions were being asked, he did not interrogate them for himself or ask about what was being asked. When he told the House that he knew that there were media inquiries about emails, we are being asked to believe that he did not ask, “What emails? What did they say?”
16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source
More
That is the most troubling thing about this. Equipped with the knowledge that he inevitably had—Monday night’s publication, and the knowledge that questions had been asked and that there were media inquiries about the emails—the credibility of the House is stretched to be asked to believe that the Prime Minister, a trained lawyer, never interrogated any of that and never asked, “What emails? What did they say? What questions have we asked?” We are asked to believe that he came to the House blind to all of that. Not only in the appointment of Lord Mandelson do we see serious flaws in the judgment of the Prime Minister. If it is truly the situation, that he came to the House with a limited but uninterrogated knowledge of these matters, then that raises further questions about his judgment. I fear that this House has many answers yet to receive. It is a matter of regret to me, as it is to other hon. Members, that the Prime Minister is not here today to answer those demanding, alarming yet simple questions: they are questions that go not only to the heart of the Prime Minister’s confidence in Lord Mandelson, but to the question of whether this House, and this people, can have confidence in the Prime Minister.
16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source
More
When we think of the International Day of Democracy, it is relevant and appropriate to reflect on what the essence of a functioning democracy is. When we distil it down, the essence of a functioning democracy is that those who are governed elect those who govern them, and that those who make the laws for any people are elected by the people over whom those laws have control. That is the very essence of a functioning democracy. We might talk about things around the world, but we need to stop, pause and ask ourselves, “Is that operating in this United Kingdom?” I have to say that in the part of the United Kingdom that I come from—Northern Ireland—that fundamental has been shredded. It is not allowed to operate because not in one, not in 30, but in 300 areas of law, the laws that govern Northern Ireland are made not in Stormont or Westminster, or by anyone elected from anywhere in Northern Ireland. They are made by a foreign Parliament—indeed, by the Parliament of 27 other nations. Why? Because of the iniquitous Windsor framework. Annexe 2, which I invite people to look at, lists hundreds upon hundreds of laws that are made in the European Parliament—not here—but enforced on Northern Ireland. Those laws touch upon the fundamentals of many of our lives. They govern the trade of Northern Ireland; they govern the manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, and how we package those goods, their contents, and how they are labelled; they govern the environment; and they even govern rights under article 2 of the Windsor framework, and culminate in the imposition of a partitioning border in this United Kingdom. So, before we get too excited about the lack of democracy elsewhere in the world, let us take the mote out of our own eye and work towards restoring that most fundamental principle: that wherever someone lives, they should be able to elect those who make the laws that govern them. It is a shame of the past Government and of the current Government that they continue, sanguinely, to allow this situation to prevail. I hear talk about young people. I just heard talk about, “Isn’t it great that young people will be able to vote?” I recently listened to a video from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He said, “We want young people to feel they have the same chance as everyone else to make the laws to which they are subject.” How I wish that applied to not just the young but the old in Northern Ireland—the right to make the laws that govern us. We present ourselves as a world-leading democracy, and yet are killing the legitimate expectation in Northern Ireland that people should be able to make the laws that govern them and not be subject to colony-like rule, because the essence of colonial rule is that people are governed by someone else’s laws, as they are not considered worthy of making their own laws, such that a foreign jurisdiction must make the laws for them. That is the essential constitutional and democratic affront of the Windsor framework. Let us set about taking the mote out of the eye of the United Kingdom. Let us set about restoring fundamental democracy to Northern Ireland.
16 Sept 2025 · International Day of Democracy · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source
More
Before the Lord Chancellor finishes his speech, can I direct him to part 4 of the Bill, which is one of the parts that applies to the whole United Kingdom? It provides for the deportation of criminal offenders. Has he considered the viability of that necessary clause, clause 42, in the light of the fact that in Northern Ireland—because of article 2 of the Windsor framework—those offenders sadly enjoy enhanced protections due to the importation of the EU’s charter of fundamental rights? Will the Lord Chancellor take steps to ensure that part 4 will apply to the whole United Kingdom by imposing a notwithstanding clause, stating that, notwithstanding article 2 of the Windsor framework, the same provisions will apply across the United Kingdom? It really would be preposterous if foreign criminals could be deported from one part of the United Kingdom but not from another.
15 Sept 2025 · Official Secrets Act · Hansard source
More
Is the alarming takeaway from this, both for this House and for any potential spy, that we are being asked to believe that the espionage in which Messrs Cash and Berry engaged is not a criminal offence? Is that where our defence of national security has got to?
10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source
More
Yes, and when it comes to spending money on partitioning the United Kingdom, this Government have no qualms. We have seen expenditure of £190 million to build border posts. Where are there border posts other than at an international border? That is the reality of the United Kingdom today; it is partitioned by an international customs border. When someone goes from GB to Northern Ireland, they are effectively leaving one customs territory, governed by the laws of the United Kingdom, and entering a customs territory governed by the laws of the EU—laws, I say again, that we do not make and cannot change. It is such a fundamental assault on not just our constitutional position but our businesses and trade, that it is causing increasing difficulties.
10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source
More
The spin was that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west, but the fact is that Invest Northern Ireland has had to say that there has not been a single inward investment because of dual market access. The reason for that is very simple: it is all very well to have access to the EU, but there is no advantage whatsoever if access to raw materials from GB is fettered. Inward investment is not happening because they do not want to have to bring their goods through an international border.
10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source
More
Of course, it was the last Government who, in their folly, brought this upon us. However, this Government, with maybe greater enthusiasm, are implementing the partitioning and dividing of the United Kingdom. The economic consequence of that is the diversion of trade; most of our raw materials come from GB, and we had a very integrated UK economy in which Northern Ireland was heavily dependent on its trade to and from GB. However, we are saying to a business supplier in GB, “If you want to send goods to Northern Ireland, or even if you want to send a parcel to Northern Ireland, you must have an export number and fill in a customs declaration, and we will carry out a percentage of checks on the goods.” That is on the supposed internal market system, never mind the red lane. The Government are deliberately and consciously closing their eyes to this, but its natural consequence is diversion of trade, which has been self-evident in recent years. The Government do not want to observe it or take account of it, because they should be under a duty to act under article 16 of the protocol. But this is a Government that have so kowtowed to the EU that they are never going to act on the issues that they should do.
10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source
More
Sadly, the only conclusion one can make is that they are happy enough about that. What is this internal market guarantee guaranteeing? That 80% of goods from Northern Ireland, instead of passing through the full-blown international customs border, will pass through the international customs border that we misname the “internal market system”, but they will still require a customs number, customs declarations and checks. The guarantee is 80%. You cannot be 80% pregnant, and you cannot be 80% part of the United Kingdom. We need to be completely part of the United Kingdom, and that requires the restoration of where this United Kingdom started, under article 6 of the Acts of Union: free and unfettered trade, equal for all parts of this kingdom.
10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source
More
It invariably amounts to Northern Ireland being treated as an EU colony, and it has all those characteristics. Into this comes some of these magical phrases, such as the internal market guarantee—that sounds very reassuring. Listening to that terminology, we would think that the protection of our internal trade is guaranteed. It is then further ensconced by the deceptive language of the UK internal market system. It is nothing of the sort; it is not a UK internal market system. The genesis of this is very interesting. We had the protocol, and we then had the Windsor framework. That change of name introduced this concept of a UK internal market system, which is really the green lane, as it was previously called. We then had the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, which was supposed to bring in groundbreaking innovations, but its only innovation was giving cover to the DUP to get back into government with Sinn Féin, and to help implement the protocol. Within that Command Paper, we then had the internal market guarantee, but let us look at this UK internal market system. It is not a system that allows free and unfettered trade from GB to Northern Ireland; it is a system that brings the operation of the international customs border down one peg. We have the red lane—a full-blown international customs border enforced by the EU—that partitions the United Kingdom with a border down the Irish sea. With this deceptive language, we then have the so-called UK internal market system, or the green lane. However, it still requires customs declarations, an export number and a percentage of checks, so it is anything but a free internal market. It is the encapsulation of the enforcement of EU requirements on our internal trade within the United Kingdom—under their control, not UK control. The depths of attempts to find deceptive language only compounds the insult involved.
10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source
More
Of course it is, but that is the intent of the protocol. No one should be under any illusion: the Windsor framework is designed to set the scene to usher Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom by the mechanism of creating an all-Ireland economy. That mechanism works in this way: it makes it increasingly difficult to trade from GB, therefore forcing business to look elsewhere for supplies; it then maximises the north-south dimension and builds an all-Ireland economy—that is the purpose of the protocol—as a stepping stone of taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That is the very clear, iniquitous political purpose of the protocol. It is that that this Government and the last were facilitating with some enthusiasm. Now, the Government told us, “Oh, we are going to take all sorts of steps to make sure that trade is not diverted. We even passed the Internal Market Act—that must be good. Section 46—doesn’t that guarantee you all sorts of wonderful things?” The Government then said, “We are going to set aside a lot of money. We are going to introduce the mutual assistance scheme.” Let me talk about the mutual assistance scheme: it was brought in to assist businesses that were having difficulties with the costs imposed at the border. It was extended, but finally ran out on 30 June this year. This Government did not extend it. What does that mean? I will tell you, Dr Allin-Khan. I have a potato wholesale business in my constituency that relies on bringing potatoes from GB to Northern Ireland. Since 30 June, the cost of a veterinary inspection for those potatoes has been £127.60, and the cost of the phytosanitary certificate has been £25.52. That was previously covered by the movement assistance scheme, but now it is put upon the supplier in GB. And what does he do? Surprise, surprise, he puts it upon the recipient in Northern Ireland. If that is not guaranteed to dissuade trade and force trade diversion, I cannot imagine what is. Here is the question for the Government: in the plethora of assurances that they gave when they said that they were not trying to drive Northern Ireland trade and business out of the United Kingdom, why did they not renew the movement assistance scheme? I trust that the Minister, who knows more about these things than anyone else in this Government, will explain why they did not renew it. Will the same thing happen with the Trader Support Service? Will it run out, too? Will our businesses increasingly be left marooned and alone to bear unconscionable financial burdens? The Government need to answer those questions, but the fundamental thing they need to address is this: when will they recover their dignity and pride—they are supposedly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—by controlling the borders of the United Kingdom and expelling the internal, partitionist international trade border that has been imposed on Northern Ireland? Unless and until they do that, this issue is not and cannot be settled. They cannot go on brushing it under the carpet and increasing the pressure by abandoning issues such as the movement assistance scheme.
10 Sept 2025 · Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That this House has considered the Windsor Framework Internal Market Guarantee. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In bringing this matter to the House again, the intention is to retain a focus on the egregious and anti-business situation that continues to prevail in respect of internal trade to Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom. However one dresses this matter up—the Government excel in their attempts in that regard—the fundamental reality is this: courtesy of the post-Brexit arrangements that were first enunciated in the protocol and then, by change of name, in the Windsor framework, we have the absurd situation whereby a part of this United Kingdom is governed by the trade laws of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU. The very essence of being part of the United Kingdom should surely be the unfettered nature of trade: the fact that people can trade as freely from Cardiff to Carlisle or from Gloucester to Glasgow as they should be able to trade from Birmingham to Belfast. That is the essence of being in a United Kingdom, where unfettered trade lies at the heart of that economic union. Of course, that is already specified in article 6 of our Act of Union. The current arrangements are based on the fact that when Brexit occurred, Northern Ireland, instead of getting Brexit, was left behind under the EU’s customs code. That means that Northern Ireland is treated for these purposes as EU territory, and that GB is treated in that context as a third, or foreign, country. Hence, under the purview of the EU customs code, there is a need for the Irish sea border—an Irish sea border that is not established directly under United Kingdom law but that is provided for by various EU provisions. We have the most astounding position that the regulation of goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland comes under EU legislation. EU regulations 2023/1128 and 2023/1231 specify the “customs formalities” for trade from GB to Northern Ireland and the “rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of…goods”. Even in the title of that EU legislation we see how wrong and absurd it is that trade within this United Kingdom, which is supposed to be a free internal market, is governed by laws that we do not make anywhere in this United Kingdom—laws that we cannot change anywhere within this United Kingdom, but that are made by 27 other countries. That is not just an economic outrage but a democratic outrage.
10 Sept 2025 · Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society · Hansard source
More
As bad as that situation is, it is in fact accentuated and worsened by the prevailing situation in Northern Ireland, where not only have we equality legislation, but, pursuant to article 2 of the protocol governing post-Brexit arrangements, there are applied additional so-called rights that have been used by activist judges to strike down already two pieces of legislation from this Parliament—the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Whether one agrees with the content or not, is it not quite appalling that within one part of the United Kingdom there are foreign jurisdictions imported through the protocol that give different so-called rights from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
10 Sept 2025 · Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace · Hansard source
More
It is good that there is universal recognition across the House that last night was an attack not just on Polish airspace but on NATO airspace. In terms of the response, may I bring the Minister back to sanctions? We have sanctions on Russian crude oil, although sadly there is at least one NATO country that does not implement them. With regard to refined oil, are we in this country not importing considerable quantities of Russian crude oil that has been refined down? In the recent trade deal with India, was there any attempt to put any restraint on that?
9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source
More
The shadow Foreign Secretary is coming to the nub of the matter. This is about the future security of the world, including the United Kingdom. We are arriving at a situation where the sovereign power is a signatory to an empty nuclear treaty that prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons anywhere within the ambit of the countries that are signatory to that treaty. How could we even use this base for our nuclear submarines?
9 Sept 2025 · Hydrogen Supply Chains · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I have the privilege of representing North Antrim, which has the success story of Wrightbus. One of Wrightbus’s many claims to fame is that it produced the first hydrogen double-decker bus in the world, and has been a leader in the technology in the evolving success story that hydrogen can be. The fundamental problem for our nation in fully exploiting hydrogen is the mismatch between the technology and the infrastructure. The ability to refuel hydrogen buses is curbing their potential production. From talking to Wrightbus, I know that it could and would produce a lot more hydrogen buses, but for the fact that customers are restrained by the lack of infrastructure for servicing them and keeping them on the road. Despite the remarkable range of the Kite Hydroliner bus that Wrightbus produces—it can do up to 1,000 km—it needs to be refuelled. That is what is holding us back in the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. It is not without significance that, although Germany is a major player in hydrogen production, Wrightbus has been able to sell it a large number of hydrogen buses. Why? Because Germany, through a Government programme, has advanced its focus on synchronising with the infrastructure that is needed. There is also a considerable German programme to actively support the hydrogen bus market. That is why it is possible. China, of course—as in most things—is also a big player when it comes to hydrogen. In particular, it has advanced the production of hydrogen from organic waste; in that regard it is probably well ahead of most of the rest of us. There are multiple opportunities in relation to how hydrogen is produced, because we now have the leading technology to use it in transport, particularly in buses. However, the one area in which I think we are failing is in providing the infrastructure, which must be there to make it succeed.
9 Sept 2025 · Hydrogen Supply Chains · Hansard source
More
Yes, I am happy to agree with that. It feeds into this point: the Government talk about their industrial strategy, which is good, but that strategy needs to energise the infrastructure in synchronisation with the technologies we are using. When it comes to hydrogen, part of that industrial strategy needs to focus more on ensuring that we have the supply infrastructure to enable the deployment of the buses and other vehicles that we can readily produce to use of hydrogen.
9 Sept 2025 · Hydrogen Supply Chains · Hansard source
More
The range for hydrogen is excellent, but when drivers get to the end of that range, they need somewhere to refuel it readily. The refuelling is quick: a hydrogen bus can be refuelled in 10 minutes. It is not a lengthy process, as it sometimes can be for electric buses. The technology for hydrogen is good and is developing at pace, but the infrastructure is the drawback. That is what is holding us back. I say to the Government: let us do it in tandem. Let us of course continue to develop the excellent technology that we have, and the world leaders that we have in it, but let us synchronise that with ensuring that the infrastructure is there to match it.
8 Sept 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy · Hansard source
More
I very much welcome the indication that Northern Ireland will participate in the defence growth deals, but will the Minister explain the interplay, if any, with the devolved Government? I ask because we in Northern Ireland have the misfortune of having an anti-British and anti-British-defence Economy Minister in the shape of a Sinn Féin Minister. Can I have an assurance that she will not be able to thwart any of Northern Ireland’s benefits under this deal? I ask that in the context that today, sadly, the MOD had to abandon its jobs fair participation in Londonderry, courtesy of Sinn Féin pressure.
2 Sept 2025 · Defibrillators · Hansard source
More
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for raising this important issue. Saving lives should be in the interests of us all, and I am sure that is what brings us here today, but we have some hard questions to ask of Government. When the availability of defibrillators can definitively save lives and the absence of them can cost lives, we have to address the question of whether the Government are doing enough to fill the gap. One particular issue of concern relates to VAT, which I will return to. We know from the statistics that the chances of surviving a heart attack that takes place outside a hospital setting are low—maybe as low as 8%—but that if a defibrillator is available, the chance of survival can increase by 70%. The key factor is the proximity of the defibrillator: the three to five minutes—the vital lifesaving window. Therefore, many of us who represent rural constituencies are concerned at the dearth of supply in some of our areas. In my North Antrim constituency, 63% of postcodes do not have a defibrillator within the three-to-five-minute lifesaving range. That is quite disturbing. I pay tribute to the many community organisations that provide this lifesaving equipment. Very often, it is not the Government, education authorities or health trusts that put a defibrillator in the local village, but a local community organisation. The Government demand 20% in VAT from that community organisation, which is not VAT-registered and has no possibility of reclaiming it. It really is quite disturbing that the Government think they need that pound of flesh in taxation on defibrillators. If the Minister takes away nothing else from this debate, I ask her to take away this fundamental humane appeal: instead of making it harder by putting a tax on lifesaving equipment, the Government should make defibrillators VAT-exempt supplies. If they made them VAT-exempt, there would be a huge opportunity to bring an uplift in life and survival to our communities.
1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source
More
Whatever the promised tinkering with article 8, the reality is that this Government, or any Government, will only get a grip on out-of-control illegal immigration by quitting the ECHR. I agree that article 8 is a problem, but the answer is article 58, which allows the Government to serve notice that they are leaving the ECHR. Unless and until they do that, we are not going to solve this problem. How does the Home Secretary hope to sort out this mess while her every action is subject to the foreign stipulations and, ultimately, the foreign Court that is diligently applying the ECHR to which she clings? Does that not mean that we go round endlessly in a circle? Will the appeal panels be subject to judicial review, during which, again, the ECHR can be relied on?
22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Member give way?
22 Jul 2025 · UK Internal Market · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →